Tedix

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructive/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: 330 s wall-time limit, 100 requests/minute gateway throttle with in-execution calls exempt, an explicit sandbox inventory (no host, fs, require, process, fetch), the confirmDestructive retry+reason contract, and the payment/money-movement exclusion. These are the operational facts an agent needs before invoking an arbitrary-code channel.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then structured into scoping, limits, a numbered discover/describe/call workflow, and result handling — easy to scan. It is long, and a few trailing items (meta.freshness, includeMetadata diagnostics, list_namespaces inventory detail) sit past the point where most agents will read, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct constraint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a highly complex, irreversible-feeling execution tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: sandbox boundaries, time and rate limits, discovery protocol, destructive-approval path, and both result-handle and truncation shapes. Return values are also schema-backed, so nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines both parameters in detail; the description mostly restates the 'one async arrow function' and 'JSON-serializable return' contract. It adds marginal value by naming the in-scope globals and forbidding named functions, but never explains agentSessionId semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline set by a fully documented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Execute JavaScript to call this app's 1265 tools across 5 namespaces,' and enumerates the namespaces with counts. This is instantly distinguishable from the shallow siblings get_info and get_profile, and an agent knows exactly what capability the tool unlocks without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit workflow (search → describe → call), plus concrete when-not guidance: never sleep or poll with setTimeout, use flow.run for long work, use discover.read_result rather than returning oversized values, and never guess tool names. It also names conditional branches for authorization and destructive approvals, so almost no routing decision is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope context (self-referential introspection only) and names the metadata fields returned. It does not describe response shape, but an output schema exists, so that gap is minor.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with zero waste. The positive scope is front-loaded and the exclusion follows immediately, giving an agent the routing rule before any elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, this description supplies everything needed: what it returns, when to call it, and when not to. No material gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly makes no attempt to describe nonexistent inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get metadata about the Tedix Connect MCP server itself') and enumerates the returned fields (name, version, tool count). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_profile or code, which concern user data rather than server identity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly gives both the positive trigger ('when the user asks about this server's identity or capabilities') and the exclusion ('NOT for answering general questions'). An agent has no ambiguity about routing decisions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the returned identity is opaque and stable across refresh, reconnect, scope and organization-selection changes, which tells an agent the value is a durable key rather than a transient snapshot.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the stability caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain the return shape, and it correctly augments with the identity-stability guarantee. The only omission is failure behavior when credentials are absent or expired, which would help an agent recover from errors.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims are made or contradicted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: return the account bound to the request's authenticated credentials. That is far more precise than the title 'Connected Tedix account' alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings (code, get_info), so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for 'which account am I authenticated as?' — but the description never states when to reach for it versus get_info or code, nor any prerequisite like needing a valid session.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.